Rand Paul to back path to citizenship for illegal aliens

I wonder what this will do to his standing among some conservatives? For the most part, his libertarian base won't let it deter their support of him, but conservatives might be a little miffed.

Conservatives may want to pay close attention to Paul's ideas about a path to citizenship because it appears what he is proposing is a long and torturous process for the illegals.

Paul's path to citizenship would come with conditions that could make it long and difficult for illegal immigrants. Chief among these, Congress would have to agree first that progress was being made on border security.

Nonetheless, Paul's endorsement of allowing illegal immigrants an eventual way to become citizens puts him in line with a growing number of Republicans who are embracing action on immigration as a way to broaden the GOP's appeal to Latinos. On Monday, a Republican National Committee report called on the GOP to support comprehensive reform, though without specifying whether it should include a pathway to citizenship, which is decried by some conservatives as amnesty.

Paul's move also comes as a bipartisan group of senators is nearing agreement on sweeping legislation to overhaul the nation's immigration laws, an effort that could get a boost from Paul's stance. In an interview, Paul said he could foresee backing the Senate group's emerging bill, although he plans to try to amend it on the floor with some of his own ideas.

Paul's speech is peppered with Spanish phrases from his youth in Texas, references to his immigrant grandparents and praise for Latino culture. He says his party must adopt a new face toward Hispanics and says conservatives must be part of it.

"Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation,"

"The current immigration mess is a legacy of Pappy Bush failing to do his Constitutional duty.

Absolutely correct, of all the plans I've seen Pauls' is the best. The current system is defacto amnesty so doing nothing is amnesty. Mass deportation is not going to happen.

Every republican that has attempted an illegal immigration fix has gone down in flames. This issue is how democrats kill leading republicans. It is not in the interest of democrats to fix the problem, the current system works in their interest. Meanwhile "conservatives" will bloody any republican that proposes anything other then mass deportation. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Personally I would just like to see the current laws enforced and the border secured. But if something must be done then Pauls' plan is the closest to what I would like to see done.

Oh and that eleven million figure is BS, 25 million is a lot closer to the real number then 11 million.

Let me say this very simply -

Here you finally have a prominent conservative trying to get ahead of an issue, preparing for 2014 and 2016 at the same time, and laying the foundation for the possibility of a workable solution to an incredible problem.

Without the Latino vote, conservatives are just a few election cycles away from being priced out of the game.

This immigration reform was supposed to be Obama and the Democrats big win this year. Paul has jumped out in front of them and is working to focus the conversation away from entitlement and pure amnesty towards a secure border and a reasonable pathway to at least being a documented, tax paying worker.

I think that it is genius plan that controls the conversation, engages the media and gets out in front of a major issue early in the next election cycle. At the same time, it steals thunder from Democrats and Obama.

I for one think that listening to and supporting what is agreeable is critical, not just thread after thread of bailing on a good person who shows leadership promise that can grow into the future. Of course, healthy opposition to the parts that are disagreeable is important, but completely dumping a good candidate, Senator and person without hearing out the plan, considering the alternatives and coming together in strength is a guaranteed pathway to failure. Again...

Without the Latino vote, conservatives are just a few election cycles away from being priced out of the game.

There is truth in this. The Hispanic vote is growing rapidly and going more and more against us. Heck, we are even losing the Asian vote now - a demographic Republicans used to win just a decade or so ago. The truth is this country is becoming more and more minority, and most of those minorities don't see the Republican party as welcoming or a voting option. Yes, the media and Democrats are mostly behind this, but it is what it is. So yes, we have to do a better job of reaching minorities.

Saying that, what evidence is there that amnesty (aka: path to citizenship) helps us win that vote? Hispanics want free stuff. That is what they are voting - a bigger, more expansive government. The Mexicans here are largely the same demographic that has been voting socialist (PRI) in Mexico for generations. What evidence is there that making them citizens will cause them to like conservatism better?

Paul is wrong about this. This is typical libertarian gibberish. We're going to find out that Rand is really not much different than Ron. He is more libertarian than conservative. Amnesty is not going to help us win Hispanics.

I don’t know if it is that simple to say that Latinos will vote for socialist ideas. The government in Mexico, for example, is quite likely very corrupt and it may not reflect at all the sentiments of the general populace.

Just for arguments sake - I think that Latino voters will gravitate towards candidates that support strong family values and the adherence to community, not necessarily handouts.

In addition, Latinos are amongst the hardest working people you will find. Policies that support the ability to find meaningful work to support their families will be attractive to Latino voters.

These things can all be aligned with conservative, traditional values. How can we help that they were born into a country that values lawlessness and corruption, and that is all that they know?

It’s a big job, but I think tanking our leaders without time, thoughtful dialogue and a willingness to find a balance is going to greatly harm America.

“They’re here and they’re not going away…”

Conservatism is about reality — and you, my FRiend, see reality as it is.
The game is up. There is no turning back now.

Is that all there is?

Do you remember that old song that was a hit for Peggy Lee decades ago?
“Is that all there is?
Is that all there is?
Well, if that’s all there is,
Let’s keep dancing...
Let’s break out the booze and have a ball
If that’s all...”

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is almost nothing left that can be done to save ourselves from the “Immigration Bomb”. Time is running out. We are fast approaching the threshhold of “is that all there is?”, and, as it will follow, the reality of “if that’s all”...

Any talk of actually sending back the millions already here is met with guffaws and opprobrium. Who’s going to send back 20 million? Or 5 million? Or even 500,000 of them? Yet each and EVERY new arrival is (to paraphrase James Q. Wilson) “one more broken window” to our notion (and nation) of borders, citizenship, and European-American culture. And each and every new arrival sends a signal to the millions more waiting to come in, “you can get away with it, so, go for it!”

For the record, I’m for sending back every illegal that can be identified and proven as such. Every one. If that means I have to pay more taxes to be rid of them, so be it. I (and you) are certainly going to be paying far more to support them for the rest of their lives here (and the lives of their descendants).

Any talk of building a security barrier to protect our Southern Border from the illegal onslaught is also met with guffaws. No one in this forum can doubt the effectiveness of the Israeli security fence as to protecting their own borders against the infiltration of Palestinian terrorists. If a security fence around [nearly] the entire country of Israel can protect them against intrusion of malevolent invaders, why wouldn’t a security barrier on our southern border protect _us_?

For the record, I advocated building a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico ‘way back in the early 90’s, before Pat Buchanan (or anyone else) was even considering such notions. Decades ago I was at the Berlin wall (when it was in existence), seen it from _both_ sides, passed through Checkpoint Charlie in U.S. military uniform. For the purposes it was intended, the Berlin Wall worked. It provided a well-defined point of demarcation and kept those on one side _out_ of the other.

The lie that the border cannot be sealed against unwanted intruders and properly policed was laid to rest years ago by the few hundred “Minutemen” patrolling in Arizona - for even in their small numbers, they seemed to produce a surprising effect!

But real deportations en masse aren’t going to happen (I know that).
And a security barrier isn’t going to be built (I know that too).
Amnesty is going to happen. I know it.
And so does everyone reading this posting.

So what’s left to be done?
Well, if you stop to think about it.... nothing.

Because nothing else can effectively keep the hordes of illegals from pouring across the borders. We won’t stop them from coming in, and once here, we won’t send them back. We’ll even guarantee them benefits equal to - or better than - what actual American _citizens_ can receive.

Thus, “is that all there is?”

So, better get used to it. Since neither political party will ever be willing to take the hard steps to STOP the illegal invasion, you might as well fill your glass with whatever you like, hoist it high, and drink a hearty toast our fading civilization.

Because as the song says, “that’s all”....

Just for arguments sake - I think that Latino voters will gravitate towards candidates that support strong family values and the adherence to community, not necessarily handouts.

What is the evidence for this? I wish it were true, but polling shows that it is not. Hispanics vote Democrat because they want a larger, more active government. That is what virtually all polling shows - and it isn't even close. They overwhelmingly tend to believe in bigger government. Hispanics seems to associate "strong family values" with big government social welfare states. I wish that were not true, but the evidence seems to suggest it is.

I understand the need to make inroads with minority voters. I can see the demographics spell doom for conservatives, even in places like Texas and Arizona, if we don't start winning some of these groups. But what evidence is there that Hispanics vote on amnesty? Every poll I've seen shows they vote Democrat because they support a bigger government. Isn't amnesty just shooting ourselves in the foot?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.